Does anyone remember at what point

[stellanoir]

the League of Women Voters stopped orchestrating the debates and the corporate media took over?

I've gone through longish periods of not watching the Tube at all so I'm not quite sure.

Just curious.

[slipslidingaway]

1. 1986 was the last Presidential debate sponsored by the League

of Women Voters

I did not remember either...


NADER PROVES COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES IS A SHAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VRd3YzOXpI


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

"The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that debates between candidates for President of the United States are run. The Commission is a private entity, funded entirely by corporate contributions.

The Commission sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, bi-partisan corporation, has sponsored each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates.

In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter"...


In 2004, the CPD faced harsh criticism of their debate structure and technique. Citing the CPD's 32 page debate contract, citizen groups and an NPR journalist called the CPD debates "news conferences," and "a reckless endangerment of democracy."<1>


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

"...The CPD has come under attack from democracy advocates, third parties and independent candidates for the presidency. They claim the CPD is little more than a front for the two dominant parties that allows them to maintain control over debate participants, formats, and moderators. This absolute control over the form also gives them indirect control over the range of issues that may be discussed, excluding many of the most critical issues on which there is either bi-partisan agreement or disinterest in discussion. All the while, the dominant parties maintain plausible deniability for the anti-democratic practices via the CPD..."


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/september96/perot_sues_9-24.html

"Reform Party candidate Ross Perot is suing the Commission on the Presidential Debates for excluding him and his running mate Pat Choate, from the October square-offs between Republican and Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates...

JIM LEHRER: We begin tonight with a Newsmaker interview with Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot. He filed a federal lawsuit yesterday demanding the presidential debates be stopped unless he is included. He joins us tonight from Dallas, Texas. Mr. Perot, welcome...


MR. PEROT: We would create jobs here in the United States, instead of shipping jobs overseas.

JIM LEHRER: But how would you--as President, how would you do it?

MR. PEROT: --jobs--Jim, I'd stop making stupid, one-sided trade agreements. I am for fair, free international trade. I am not for stupid, one-sided international trade. And if you don't think ours is, look at our trade deficit, our cumulative trade deficit of a trillion dollars, look at NAFTA that was supposed to make us all rich, the trade deficit is going through the roof, getting bigger every year, not working. The people of Mexico are not benefitting. They've been devastated in the year since NAFTA started. But look at our trading partners. Look at the car deal that the Europeans negotiated with Japan; it's a whole lot smarter than ours. We are bought and paid for by the special interests.

For example, most of our chief trade negotiators become foreign lobbyists when they leave. If we get elected, all that will stop. We will stop coming to Washington to cash in when you leave. You come to serve and you go home. All those things are in our principles. That's what the American people want. We will see that it gets done. We will have a new tax system, Jim, but it will be carefully and--we won't run up and down the streets screaming flat tax or some other buzzword..."


The report below is 35 pages and I did not read the entire report...

http://www.opendebates.org/documents/REPORT2.pdf

"DETERRING DEMOCRACY:
HOW THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY

A Report Jointly Issued By:

Brennan Center for Justice
Center for Voting and Democracy
Common Cause
Democracy Matters
Democracy South
Judicial Watch
National Voting Rights Institute
Open Debates
Public Campaign
Rock the Vote
Voting Rights Project of the Institute for Southern Studies

August 23, 2004"

[rug]

2. Who won in 1986?

[slipslidingaway]

3. Let's change the year to 1984...

:blush:

:scared:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election_debates#Debate_sponsorship

"...Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a dramatic press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The two major political parties had their own loyalists ready to take over the debates and did so in 1988 under the name of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The two parties presented the 1988 debates and have done so every election cycle since. The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties..."